Da Outlines Plan For Drunk Drivers He Would Set Up 2 Booking Stations For Blood Tests

November 15, 1985|by PEG RHODIN, The Morning Call

A plan to set up central booking stations for suspected drunken drivers was outlined for Northampton County Council last night by District Attorney Donald Corriere.

Corriere said the state Department of Transportation is interested in helping fund the program, which he said would increase drunken driving arrests and "encourage compliance with the law."

The district attorney described the plan at a hearing on his 1986 budget in the Government Center in Easton. He suggested that between $60,000 and $90,000 now earned for the county's general fund by pre-trial disposition of selected drunken driving cases could pay initial costs.

Corriere said this is how the plan would work:

Booking stations manned by retired or off-duty police and a nurse would be set up at two central points in the county.

They would be open 24 hours a day during weekends, and the officers and nurses would be on call the rest of the week.

A policeman making an arrest for drunken driving would, after making field tests, take the suspect to a booking station, where he would fill out an information form and where the nurse would take a sample of his blood for analysis. The entire process would be videotaped.

The arresting officer, meanwhile, could return to duty. Volunteers from Mothers Against Drunk Driving or a similar organization would see that the suspect got safely home.

The blood sample would be transferred to a hospital to determine its alcohol content. If it registered .10 percent or more, the arrested person would be charged with driving under the influence.

"Part of the program includes a fast-track device which would get people into Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition within 90 days," Corriere said. ARD permits the first offender to avoid a jail term and remain on nominal probation while he attends a safe driving school and, if necessary, receives counseling.

Persons accepted for ARD now appear before a county judge. Under the proposed "fast-track" system, the person facing a drunken driving charge would waive both his arraignment and preliminary hearing before a district justice and the magistrate would place him on ARD.

Since a good one-third of the cases on a trial list are drunken drivers, the system would free the district attorney's staff to prosecute more serious offenses, Corriere said.

He said that people involved in accidents causing serious injuries would not be eligible to take part.

He said Assistant District Attorney Richard Pepper is putting together a grant application, and "if we get it, all costs will be paid by PennDOT including six month' of salaries." He added that he believed the state would shoulder all capital costs - such as the videotape equipment - but in order to pay the salaries, the court might have to increase the present ARD costs to as much as $1,000 from the present considerably lower fees.

PennDOT would reimburse its share after the county has already spent the money, he explained.

"The whole program could run as high as $200,000 to $500,000," he said.

He told the councilmen, "We will need your cooperation. When we come back, maybe as soon as January, we will ask to use the present ARD surplus. We want it totally self-sufficient. You will lose a revenue item which you probably didn't even know you had. We think you will like it."

Corriere said between 500 and 600 people are charged with drunken driving in the county each year, with about 50 disposed of in each court term.

The district attorney also urged council to approve a request for $25,000 to pay costs of a grand jury investigation of Bethlehem Township officials. The investigation got under way last month.

"It's very difficult to give you any idea of how much will be used and how much won't," Corriere said. "Our men had to go to Harrisburg again today for the grand jury, and we anticipate retaining some former IRS criminal investigators to help us. The $25,000 is just a number out of the sky. I have no idea how large the cost will be. It might be $5,000; it might be $25,000."

Later in the hearing, President Judge Alfred T. Williams Jr. urged the council members to consider the addition of a second deputy court administrator to the court staff. The administrator would handle fiscal matters for the courts, which have for 1986 a budget of more than $6.5 million.

Williams said the county administration initially turned down his request and when he resubmitted it with a new job description, "I never heard anything further."

The judge discussed with council member Ladd Siftar possible uses of $375,000 which the state will pay to the county during the fiscal year 1985-86. The money was allocated at the rate of $25,000 for each district magistrate in the county, but is not meant to support their offices.

"The intent of the legislation was to recognize the fact that counties are being short-changed across the board," Siftar said. "This is an attempt to equalize the revenue shortfall across the state."

Siftar said the Pennsylvania State Association of County Commissioners warned him that while there are no restrictions on spending the money, "the funding is only provided for in the Commonwealth's 1985-86 budget. It appears nowhere else in statute. As a result, there is no guarantee of funding beyond this year."

The councilman said that since $200,000 in federal revenue-sharing money has been allocated toward planning for a sixth judge in the county, and "we may have the $375,000 sooner than we have a sixth judge," he thought the funds should go toward "economic development" of the county rather than court expenses.

"The allocation and use of the funds is in the hands of council," Judge Williams agreed.